Major explosion/bomb in Oslo
Discussion
TallbutBuxomly said:
Finlandia said:
No one is defending him, but to be able to minimise the risk of this happening again, we need to understand the motive behind, and most of all the politicians will have to start being open about things.
"snort" Fat f
king chance of that happening.isaduck said:
carmonk said:
What's the difference between a nutter and someone who's insane?
Not sure if that's rhetorical or not (my poor English, sorry).I think 'nutter' is his case = Narcissistic & Antisocial personality disorders at the extreme dysfunctional end of the spectrum (previously known as sociopathic/psychopathic disorders); whereas legally insane = inability to tell right from wrong.
I don't think he's 'insane'. All of his comments along the lines of 'it was difficult, but necessary', indicate he knew very well right from wrong. He just didn't care.
carmonk said:
It's not that he didn't care, it's that he believed what he was doing was right. Wrong, to him, was not doing anything. I have no idea whether he has a recognised mental problem but the point I was trying to make to the other poster is that using weasel words to pretend none of this happened will result in the least desirable outcome.
I agree with your last statement. By "didn't care" I meant he has a complete lack of empathy for others (=my understanding of APD from what I've read).isaduck said:
I agree with your last statement. By "didn't care" I meant he has a complete lack of empathy for others (=my understanding of APD from what I've read).
which is where i substantially disagree. Were that the case he would have asked the families of his victoms to leave the room when he started describing his massacre.TallbutBuxomly said:
which is where i substantially disagree. Were that the case he would have asked the families of his victoms to leave the room when he started describing his massacre.
My understanding is that he did ask them to leave (or toned down his words when they were present - I don't remember exactly). Is that what you meant?He knew (and knows) it was wrong, and he did it anyway.
TallbutBuxomly said:
isaduck said:
I agree with your last statement. By "didn't care" I meant he has a complete lack of empathy for others (=my understanding of APD from what I've read).
which is where i substantially disagree. Were that the case he would have asked the families of his victoms to leave the room when he started describing his massacre.Finlandia said:
He sees himself as a soldier at war, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he knew/knows what he did was wrong but he did it anyway for a greater good, at least in his mind.
Are you sure about that?I think soldiers in war kill for many reasons. It may be they trust the powers that give the orders to see the bigger picture and know better. It may be to save their friends who are directly in harms way. It may be something else entirely. I really don't know, I've not been there. I think in general though, they feel that what they are doing is honourable (maybe not morally right, but necessary).
I don't see anything honourable in what Breivik did, any way you care to slice it. I don't think he's stupid, and I suspect he doesn't see it as honourable either.
I question why he identified himself with the Templars. Because they were an honourable group of fighters? Or because they were betrayed by their commanding power?
I think the latter & his motivation/justification (in his personal reality) was revenge pure & simple. No 'greater good' involved.
isaduck said:
Finlandia said:
He sees himself as a soldier at war, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he knew/knows what he did was wrong but he did it anyway for a greater good, at least in his mind.
Are you sure about that?I think soldiers in war kill for many reasons. It may be they trust the powers that give the orders to see the bigger picture and know better. It may be to save their friends who are directly in harms way. It may be something else entirely. I really don't know, I've not been there. I think in general though, they feel that what they are doing is honourable (maybe not morally right, but necessary).
I don't see anything honourable in what Breivik did, any way you care to slice it. I don't think he's stupid, and I suspect he doesn't see it as honourable either.
I question why he identified himself with the Templars. Because they were an honourable group of fighters? Or because they were betrayed by their commanding power?
I think the latter & his motivation/justification (in his personal reality) was revenge pure & simple. No 'greater good' involved.
He identified himself with the Templars because he sees himself as a honourable freedom fighter (in the bigger picture), who has been betrayes by the commanding powers of his country?
He also said something about his actions being considered as terrorism now, but will be seen as heroism in 100 years.
Paraphrasing for effect here.
previous poster said:
Are you sure about that?
I think Breivik killed for many reasons. It may be he trusted the powers that give the orders to see the bigger picture and know better. It may be to save his friends who are directly in harms way. It may be something else entirely. I really don't know, I've not been there. I think in general though, he feels that what he did was honourable (maybe not morally right, but necessary).
I think Breivik killed for many reasons. It may be he trusted the powers that give the orders to see the bigger picture and know better. It may be to save his friends who are directly in harms way. It may be something else entirely. I really don't know, I've not been there. I think in general though, he feels that what he did was honourable (maybe not morally right, but necessary).
Seems to me he did have the mindset of a soldier/paramilitary cell.
His own self-direction is probably driven by a massively distorted sense of ego; I think this is sometimes said to fit the profile of 'malignant narcissism' by shrinky types.
It seems he is maddeningly narcissistic; having surgery to become more arian, and speaking of how he is the leading edge of a wave of war. In a rather dutiful malignant sense, he could not stand the idea of being unnoticed, and desperately needed a vehicle or platform to enact his wish to find some kind of greatneess.
He is quite typical in this sense, very much like Kevin Spaceys character in 'se7en'. Trying to teach some already well-trodden lesson, but doing it in his own rather pathetically sinister way.
His aspirations were quite grandiose- that he is the 'first trickle of a flood' etc, and his courting of the public forum (literally a court in this sense) to espouse his views is a perfect example of how he is confirming his own importance: that he is confusing fame for infamy is irrelevant too.
These components would make him more narcissistic than antisocial; it would explain why he is able to keep a sense of emotional resonance/ empathy with victims, and have a sense of consicence too; but the weak ego in narcissism is easily overridden by the quest for glory, even if that glory is that of being a monster- there is a narcissistic prize in itself, to being the worst, most cold, most incomprehensibly calculated monster.
I read around this link a bit... http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/39/3/258.short
His own self-direction is probably driven by a massively distorted sense of ego; I think this is sometimes said to fit the profile of 'malignant narcissism' by shrinky types.
It seems he is maddeningly narcissistic; having surgery to become more arian, and speaking of how he is the leading edge of a wave of war. In a rather dutiful malignant sense, he could not stand the idea of being unnoticed, and desperately needed a vehicle or platform to enact his wish to find some kind of greatneess.
He is quite typical in this sense, very much like Kevin Spaceys character in 'se7en'. Trying to teach some already well-trodden lesson, but doing it in his own rather pathetically sinister way.
His aspirations were quite grandiose- that he is the 'first trickle of a flood' etc, and his courting of the public forum (literally a court in this sense) to espouse his views is a perfect example of how he is confirming his own importance: that he is confusing fame for infamy is irrelevant too.
These components would make him more narcissistic than antisocial; it would explain why he is able to keep a sense of emotional resonance/ empathy with victims, and have a sense of consicence too; but the weak ego in narcissism is easily overridden by the quest for glory, even if that glory is that of being a monster- there is a narcissistic prize in itself, to being the worst, most cold, most incomprehensibly calculated monster.
I read around this link a bit... http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/39/3/258.short
Edited by Light n Hairy on Sunday 22 April 16:56
MX7 said:
"Militant nationalists have a lot to learn from [al-Qaeda]," he told the court.Hmm.. Why does he want to emulate an organisation that is the opposite of what he believes in?
s1962a said:
MX7 said:
"Militant nationalists have a lot to learn from [al-Qaeda]," he told the court.Hmm.. Why does he want to emulate an organisation that is the opposite of what he believes in?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff